WTC7 falls at free fall speed? Why does the official story defy known laws of physics?

IMO this is the most damning evidence that a conspiracy was afoot on 9/11. It has not been adequately explained, although others have attempted to
convince some that it has, which is a lie. Considering all other factors, for something to fall at 9.8 m x s^-2, there must not be any resistance
underneath the falling body. So for the building to collapse in this manner, the parts of the building beneath the top, which is the part that was
supposedly damaged, all those lower portions of the building must have been falling at the same speed as well. OR, they must have been falling for a
longer period of time.

None of it makes any sense, and personally I still feel the evidence points to an Israeli/Mossad operation, and not some Afghani terrorists. That was
probably the cover story from the beginning. And the second weirdest aspect of 911 is the Pentagon. Out of over 80 cameras capturing footage at the
time of impact, only one piece of footage has been released, and that particular piece of footage did not show an airplane at all. And then there is
the FACT that one of the planes that hit the WTC was NOT a passenger plane at all, but a military plane. Countless people are recorder, there on the
street as this was happening, saying that the plane was a military aircraft. People know what a passenger aircraft looks like, and what everyone saw
was definitely not in that category.

Give it a rest already. Everyone knows it was an inside job.. but it cant and never will be prooved or admitted. Do you really think they`d do that
and selfimplode the country??? Immagine the repurcussions... staging a war like that by killing off your own citizens.

Your posts are way to long to prompt any further interest from me on here. Maybe if you took it one or two points at a time instead of carpet bombing
the whole page...

regardless, have a nice thread... I'm out.

Translation:

"Hmmmmm Maybe he's right and I'm wrong after all? - But I'm way too stubborn and ignorant to admit that. What's the best sentence I can write whilst
trying to sound that I'm still in the right, and get out of this extremely deep hole I've dug for myself without losing too much face???? Ahhhh this
should do, hopefully nobody will notice"...

Your posts are way to long to prompt any further interest from me on here. Maybe if you took it one or two points at a time instead of carpet
bombing the whole page... regardless, have a nice thread... I'm out.

Everyone knows Scott Forbes who came forward in 2004 about the power down on the weekend before 9/11. Another gentleman by the name of Gary Corbett
came forward in 2010 with his proof of employment at the WTC, and he also confirmed the power down on the weekend before 9/11.

Please explain what shutting down power and rigging a building have to do with each other?

And then there is the FACT that one of the planes that hit the WTC was NOT a passenger plane at all, but a military plane.

It sounds good on a conspiracy site. But it ignors the passenger atitfacts and body parts found all over the place.
For your snipet to be true you then have to explain how people and items from passengers on another plane ended up around the building.

Remember when a lie is told another lie must be used to cover up the first lie. It never ends.

Originally posted by samkent
Here [/url] ya go.
And it started with a little old vending machine fire.

By comparing that particular building collapse, it would seem that dishonesty and misinformation take precedence over facts and truth. Even though
this was already debunked in the thread you linked to, I'll do it again here:

- Firstly, it was obviously only a partial collapse as evidenced in the image.

- Secondly, this was not a steel-structured building. It was a concrete-framed building with steel reinforcements in the concrete columns. The
steel reinforcement decreased with height.

- Lastly, the Verinage demolition technique has already shown that concrete structures will easily crush themselves down to the ground once collapse
has been initiated. And that's exactly what we see here.

Steel-structured highrises cannot crush themselves down to the ground, nor have any completely collapsed down to the ground due to fire in history.
This is a fact that remains unchallenged.

Comparing a concrete-structured building to a steel-structured building is dishonest, misleading, and a form of trickery to the lay person who isn't
versed in building construction or demolition techniques, and building collapse history.

Originally posted by samkent
Please explain what shutting down power and rigging a building have to do with each other?

I didn't say anything about rigging anything. It was called a lie that there was a power down on the weekend before. I proved that wrong with two
separate people coming forward and testifying to the contrary.

Originally posted by samkent
Totally debunked. You must be reading older conspiracy rants on this subect.

Can you provide the peer-reviewed paper that debunks the peer-reviewed thermite paper? We all would love to see it.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
And then there is the FACT that one of the planes that hit the WTC was NOT a passenger plane at all, but a military plane. Countless people are
recorder, there on the street as this was happening, saying that the plane was a military aircraft. People know what a passenger aircraft looks like,
and what everyone saw was definitely not in that category.

Since "samkent" commented on this, I will as well.

It most certainly is not a fact that one of the planes was a military plane. And it is also not "countless" people. It's only a couple people, and
they were just mistaken. These witnesses you speak of were also commenting about the second plane.

One Reminder Only!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by br0ker
Give it a rest already. Everyone knows it was an inside job.. but it cant and never will be prooved or admitted. Do you really think they`d do that
and selfimplode the country??? Immagine the repurcussions... staging a war like that by killing off your own citizens.

I agree, but I would like to see some independent experiments done.

1. Crash an airplane loaded with fuel into a high rise, an airplane drone,
and a building they wanted to demolish anyway, don't even send in
fire fighters to try and put out the fire, and then sit and watch and
wait to see how long it will take for the building to completely
disintegrate as it falls at demolition rate speed into its own
foundation.

2. Crash an airplane of comparable size, into a 3 or 4 story building like
the pentagon, but first, by remote control and perform those maneuvers
they claim the pilot performed to see if the airplane can even do it,
then see if it makes an only 8 foot diameter hole in the building leaving
almost no sign of airplane wreckage behind, no wings sheared off,
nothing, it will also be interesting to see if the lawn is pristine also.

wow Sammy
i'm sure glad you are on "their" side
well you have certainly answered the question" why does the OS defy the laws of physics?"
and veryfied my answer:
"the average US citizen has the science education of a 12 year old"

lol
keep it up though
the truth couldn't win without you

"According to the Warren Report the missile hit JFK in the posterior neck, then without striking any hard object passed through the neck to exit
at the front of his throat. It then entered Texas Governor John B. Connally's back at the right arm pit, sliding along his fifth rib, demolishing four
inches of the rib before it exited his chest below the right nipple. The bullet then allegedly struck and shattered the radius of the right wrist on
the dorsal side, then exited at the base of his palm and hit his left thigh just about the knee. The Report then asserts that CE 399 traveled about
three inches beneath the surface of the skin, hit the femur and deposited a lead fragment on the bone. Then, sometime later, with a spasm of reverse
kinetic energy it spontaneously exited the hole in Connally's thigh and neatly tucked itself under the mattress of a stretcher parked in a hallway of
the Parkland Memorial Hospital that the Report asserted was linked to the wounded governor. There it rested calmly under the mattress waiting for its
rendezvous with history."

Originally posted by ANOK
Millions of threads discussing this, but the smoking gun that WTC 7 was imploded is the FACT that the majority of the building landed in it's own
footprint, evidenced by the outer walls being on top of the debris pile.

In a natural collapse the outer walls would be under the rubble, not on top, path of least resistance and all that. It takes timed controlled
explosives to make the outer walls fold in on top of the rest of the collapsed building, exactly what an implosion demolition is designed to do.

Comparing a concrete-structured building to a steel-structured building is dishonest, misleading, and a form of trickery to the lay person who isn't
versed in building construction or demolition techniques, and building collapse history.

Tell that to the AE9/11 truth guys on here that post pictures of high rise building fires on here that are also concrete or concrete steel
construction and had NO impact damage.

Also the simple fact that the OTHER buildings you and others continue to compare the towers with are NOT 100+ floors high of a tube in tube design
were floors can fall internally in the structure!!!

Where is your vid and pics of a steel framed building that collapsed from fire and had the same outcome as WTC 7?

Can you demonstrate that sagging trusses can pull in columns?

Here is a vid of implosion demolitions, notice the similarities to WTC 7, the penthouse drops first, the outer walls lean inwards (the so-called lean
of WTC 7), and the outer walls end up sitting on top of the rubble. Buildings do not collapse that way naturally.

Now can you find a multi story steel framed building that collapsed from fire, that falls like an implosion demolition?

Where is your vid and pics of a steel framed building that collapsed from fire and had the same outcome as WTC 7?

Can you demonstrate that sagging trusses can pull in columns?

Here is a vid of implosion demolitions, notice the similarities to WTC 7, the penthouse drops first, the outer walls lean inwards (the so-called lean
of WTC 7), and the outer walls end up sitting on top of the rubble. Buildings do not collapse that way naturally.

Now can you find a multi story steel framed building that collapsed from fire, that falls like an implosion demolition?

edit on 4/8/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Interesting how you chose video from implosionworld when they explicitly state that 911 was not CD.

Originally posted by samkent
Interesting how you chose video from implosionworld when they explicitly state that 911 was not CD.

I didn't choose it for that reason, just the first one I found.

I don't care what they said. This is the problem with this discussion, you go by what other people are telling you, not by your own knowledge. So I
am not debating you, I am debating whoevers point you decide to use.

They can say what they want, this discussion is not about what people have said, it is about the physics of the collapses. If you have never taken
into consideration the result of a major company going against the governments explanation, then you need a reality check mate. I know plenty of
professionals who think the collapses could not have been caused by the fires, but they will never admit that in public because of the consequences.
In some circles it would be worse than telling someone you're a gay middle eastern pedophile, or worse yet, an Obama supporter.

So unless you can explain what I have asked you to explain, what other people say has no relevance at all to this discussion.

So can you explain how sagging trusses can pull in the columns? Can you explain how WTC 7 landed in it's footprint? That is all I am asking,
shouldn't be too hard for an expert as yourself, eh?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.